PDA

View Full Version : Is the pace of computer development slowing?



huggy87
05-26-2004, 01:46 PM
I replace my computer about every four years. Not with the top of the line, but with a mid-to-high range system. My current rig is about 2 1/2 years old so I am keeping half an eye on the market. I am shocked that about $2000 US will only get something in the low 3.X Ghz range. The speed hasn't even doubled from my current 1.8 ghz.

7 years ago I jumped from a 25 Mhz (woohoo!)computer to a 233Mhz. 2 1/2 years ago I jumped from that 233 to my current 1.8 Ghz. That is about an 8-10 fold increase in processing power with each four year purchase. I figure with my next purchase, I will be lucky to just triple the power of my 1.8Ghz processor.

Why is the development pace slowing down? I really don't pay much attention to the computer world.

huggy87
05-26-2004, 01:46 PM
I replace my computer about every four years. Not with the top of the line, but with a mid-to-high range system. My current rig is about 2 1/2 years old so I am keeping half an eye on the market. I am shocked that about $2000 US will only get something in the low 3.X Ghz range. The speed hasn't even doubled from my current 1.8 ghz.

7 years ago I jumped from a 25 Mhz (woohoo!)computer to a 233Mhz. 2 1/2 years ago I jumped from that 233 to my current 1.8 Ghz. That is about an 8-10 fold increase in processing power with each four year purchase. I figure with my next purchase, I will be lucky to just triple the power of my 1.8Ghz processor.

Why is the development pace slowing down? I really don't pay much attention to the computer world.

olaleier
05-26-2004, 01:52 PM
It's not slowing down, it's just the speed of the processors that make you see everything in slow-mo Neo style.

==================================
http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v30/olaleier/cobrasig.jpg
==================================
Marvin in hyperlobby

Fennec_P
05-26-2004, 02:14 PM
It does seem to be slowing down.

I've had a 100mhz, 800mhz and now a 1.6ghz chip. Years later, the best thing you can find is 3.2ghz, and it will cost you an arm and a leg.

Or it might just be that game requirements are outstripping the hardware. At least, the hardware that people can actually afford.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Wed May 26 2004 at 01:22 PM.]

carguy_
05-26-2004, 02:23 PM
Take a peek at last 40years of economy and compare it to 5 last years.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

nixon-fiend.
05-26-2004, 02:26 PM
Believe me, it ain't.. they could probably release a 1000Ghz monstrousity now if they wanted.

But no!

They are clever.. they let the market settle.

Be sure, they dictate all.

I read something about self-healing computers and microchips using cells from slugs (yeah slugs!!)

It's going to get so advanced, it's scary!

Fennec_P
05-26-2004, 02:27 PM
Slugs are all nice and good, but it doesn't mean squat until its in my box running Doom 3.

p1ngu666
05-26-2004, 02:33 PM
it is
www.overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com) has some info onit
die shrink isnt giving the gains it did

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Huxley_S
05-26-2004, 02:53 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15739

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 03:11 PM
Reaching the limits of the x86 technology, process technology, heat, and so on.

That doesn't mean development is slowing down because we are hitting a real limit, just that the market support to make the next major leap in technology isn't there.

Things like IBMs copper process, VLIW, word size, and so on could revolutionize things again it put together in the right combination, but it would require a large investment to start (passed on to the market), and almost certainly a break from existing software and the tradition of backward compatible systems.

IOW - if people were buying the hardware and demanding more, we'd be getting more.

Trouble is, what are 99.9% of the market going to do with a 2GHz system, let alone anything faster? Send email, write documents, do their taxes, surf the web. That's it. You don't need a monster system to do that. Even with M$ code bloat.

Which is another thing, the OS and apps can't really be pushed farther in any meaningful ways right now. The only majorly resource intensive software technology left would be speech recognition. And current systems aren't really up to snuff for a Star Trek:TNG style voice interface, but......... how many people really want that? Again, back to money. That sort of thing is more trouble than it's worth. Sure, it's more natural than typing, but, it's also noiser and far less private. What about dealing with sensitive topics in non-secluded environments? Can you imagine a cube farm with everyone chattering to their PCs at the same time?

So basically there is no reason for anyone to upgrade. The software makers can't push the limit much more, and the hardware makers have no demand to meet.

Worse, it's symbiotic. As people begin to think they don't need to upgrade, the hardware market shrinks and gets more expensive, thus making people even less likely to upgrade. Software makers can't push too hard then because people won't want to buy software they can't run. And round and round it goes.

It's really only gaming that's driving the advance of the "consumer" market.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Weather_Man
05-26-2004, 03:37 PM
By the end of the year there will be 4Ghz CPUs, totally new mobo design, new DDR2 RAM, new PCI Express, new 300 Mb/s SATA HDD, etc.

There's plenty of development going on. And don't look at just the speed of a CPU. There are big improvements in cache size, bus speeds, etc., that impact performance more than a GHz jump in speed.

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2004, 03:40 PM
Yes, there was a speed wall at 3GHz in processors. I mean, 3Ghz is the max speed for a year now, its never got stuck like that before. With the 64bit stuff the ride begins again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Think about it, AMD just stopped at 3200+ rating, and went 64 bit instead of going AthalonXP 3600+ for example. Good long term decision I think, and Intel too I guess--I don't follow Intel anymore since they porked the pentium FPU in PIII.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SPLASH_1
05-26-2004, 03:59 PM
Once intel get seriously into 64bit speeds will start to go up again then theres the switch to Btx layout and pci express to consider....

my 2p.........

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/corsair1.jpg

[This message was edited by SPLASH_1 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:04 PM.]

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yes, there was a speed wall at 3GHz in processors. I mean, 3Ghz is the max speed for a year now, its never got stuck like that before. With the 64bit stuff the ride begins again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Think about it, AMD just stopped at 3200+ rating, and went 64 bit instead of going AthalonXP 3600+ for example. Good long term decision I think, and Intel too I guess--I don't follow Intel anymore since they porked the pentium FPU in PIII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FP difference is negligible. That's a lot of marketing hype. Pentiums are not firehazards, Athlons are. lol

Plus, Intel is the market leader, everything is done for and based on their stuff ("everything" in the figurative sense, not literal). Why risk that something - anything - might not work exactly the way it's supposed to?

Given the lack of thermal protection and extra heat generated by Athlons, P4s are just a far safer (and that I do mean literally) bet.

But, you say it's never stuck at a single speed for a year......how long have you been messing with PCs? Just curious. The pace of development of the 8086 through to 80486 was enough to make a snail look fast.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

VW-IceFire
05-26-2004, 04:18 PM
One of the things that has changed in the last couple of years is the clock speed rating means less and less.

The 1.6GHz Centrino in a notebook outperforms a 2.6GHz Pentium 4 normally. My AMD 2700+ is at 2.0 (just over I think) GHz and yet it compairs favorably with the 2.7 and 2.8 GHz Pentium 4's of the time.

Stuff like Hyperthreading, dual core processors, and that sort of thing will be the future. GHz numbers mean less and less...so look on a more broad level and CPU power continues its exponential climb.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

tsisqua
05-26-2004, 04:27 PM
No. Remember that the processor is not the only place where we see advancement. GPU's are now able to carry loads that the CPU and system memory used to be drained by. DDT, I know what you are saying about the 64bit stuff, but believe me, you will have one eventually. While the max FSB of a P4 is 800 megahertz, my 64bit 3200+ doesn't need to bus . . . but the rate of data movement would give an equivilent 1.6 gigs, and 6 months now after settup with no problems, other than the lack of a 64Bit OS . . . and I have the beta version right now, it simply is lacking in driver support. The actual speed of the processor is only 2 gigs, so things are changing, big time. Instead of trying to get more speed from voltage, they are working on architecture, and I think that, ultimately, this is what's going to make the real difference.

Tsisqua

BlitzPig_DDT
05-26-2004, 05:56 PM
Yes, I'm certain I will have a 64 bit chip on my desk at some point. Afterall, they won't stop altogether, but, like I was saying, software taxes hardware, and hardware allows software to do more and then push the limits again and so on. We got over the easy stuff in terms of features and functionality in software already.

Most people don't use everything that Windows or Office can do.

Then again, I think we are still living in the dark ages and have never been satisfied with the rate of advance, so I'm sure my view is colord. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif lol

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

huggy87
05-26-2004, 07:07 PM
Is there anything planned for the future as far as a more user friendly operating system? Say a super X-Box. Computer gaming has come a long way since the days of DOS, but still leaves a lot to be desired. I think the biggest thing holding back computer game sales is the complexity and care and feeding required of computers themselves.

If it wasn't for the great flight sims, strategy games, and shooters that can only be found on computers I would happily switch to X-box and save thousands of dollars.

tsisqua
05-26-2004, 10:04 PM
Some of the new 64bit games that are going to be out don't need to use the OS of the computer. You load the disk, reboot the PC, and the PC boots to the game, operating on a Linux kernel installed to the game disk. The end result is a gaming console on steroids.


Just wait. We ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Tsisqua

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 12:30 AM
Tsisqua:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some of the new 64bit games that are going to be out don't need to use the OS of the computer. You load the disk, reboot the PC, and the PC boots to the game, operating on a Linux kernel installed to the game disk. The end result is a gaming console on steroids.

Just wait. We ain't seen nuthin' yet!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is News to me. Tell more, or if you have linky. Awsum!!

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ucanfly
05-27-2004, 01:12 AM
if that is the wave of the future that would really be very welcome indeed! I am sick of dealing with a bloated operating system wanting to do everything when somtimes all I want to do is run a sim.

FI_Cider
05-27-2004, 04:36 AM
google for knoppix and download the iso. (it´s free). complete os on 1 cd, works like a charm even on some exotic laptops...
good tool to fix broken win-machines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hawgdog
05-27-2004, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI_Cider:
google for knoppix and download the iso. (it´s free). complete os on 1 cd, works like a charm even on some exotic laptops...
good tool to fix broken win-machines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy Cow, I can catch lightning in a bottle, but I had no clue what you just said! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

249th_Harrier
05-27-2004, 05:13 AM
Typically, the reduction in operating voltage, reduction in signal path distance, and reduction in gate capacitance of a new process technology node results in a reduction in power consumption. That means that a shrink of a current design results in a chip that is smaller, cheaper to produce (more die per wafer) and consumes less power. For example, I bought a 700MHz Athlon using 250nm process, it consumed 80W. Then AMD came out with a 180nm version, same design, which consumed only 40W! Unfortunately all of that has changed. To make transistors switch faster you need short channels, which makes them leaky. This problem has reached critical proportions with 90nm. This means that as long as the power is on in a circuit, it draws a lot of current, even if it isn't doing any switching. New Intel shrinks using 90nm process consume the same power that the 110nm versions did, which means no headroom for increasing clock frequency. Future increases in performance will rely on more parallelism, rather than cranking up clock speed. Already AMD and Intel are planning on dual core parts, and changes in architecture (someone already mentioned VLIW) may help also. These are very hard to do, and require a lot of design cost. Intel has relied on the shrink + crank clock speed strategy to minimize their design cost, but I think that time is over.

yarbles67
05-27-2004, 05:21 AM
Maybe somebody mentioned this but one of the biggest advancements I see for gamers is the introduction of the PCI Express technology. Current AGP 8x bandwidth is capped at 2 Gbit/sec transfer rate while PCI Express will allow graphics data to be transfered at 4.1 GBit/sec! This is the single biggest bottleneck impacting current AGP GPUs. The other huge difference is the number of pipes. AGP 8x only uses a single pipe that's non syncronous while PCI Exrepss will have 16 pipes that allows dual flow of data. Huge. ATI is even working on an interlaced PCI Exrpess card combo (for Alienware) for when these new mobo's hit the market later this year. From what I've read and seen, a single PCI Card will double FPS in any game while an interlaced setup while 4x the FPS. Can we say running Battle of Britian in 'perfect' at 100+ fps! We we say running Il2:FB AEP in perfect at 200 fps!

tsisqua
05-27-2004, 05:33 AM
For anyone interested:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-5087001.html?tag=sas_email

There is also a 64Bit version of Unreal Tournament, and a couple others. They all load the same way. Keep in mind that this will not allow for user mods, and the old way of installing to the HD will still exist . . . for IL2/FB, BoB, PF, or whatever else may be out, the constant updates require that these simulations remain on the HD. Otherwise, there would have to be a new CD for every update, and I don't think that us, Ubi, or 1C can afford to do that.

The flying games that can run this way are the ones designed with consoles in mind; Secret Weapons Over Normandy, and the upcoming Heroes Of The Pacific are good examples. Unfortunately, they are extremely arcadish.

Tsisqua

PBNA-Boosher
05-27-2004, 05:48 AM
EVERY FOUR YEARS!!!!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I haven't replaced my computer in close to 8.5 years! It still runs FB: AEP!

Jasko76
05-27-2004, 05:50 AM
PCI Express sounds fine, but bear in mind that we are still far from hitting the limit of what AGP 8 can transfer, even with cards such as Radeon X800 and FX 6800. PCI Express is still a thing of the (rather distant) future!


Regards,

Jasko
http://www.zoro.hr/filipovic/filipovic-slike/sarajevo-16.jpg

Formerly known as Rajvosa

PF_Coastie
05-27-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
No. Remember that the processor is not the only place where we see advancement. GPU's are now able to carry loads that the CPU and system memory used to be drained by. DDT, I know what you are saying about the 64bit stuff, but believe me, you will have one eventually. While the max FSB of a P4 is 800 megahertz, my 64bit 3200+ doesn't need to bus . . . but the rate of data movement would give an equivilent 1.6 gigs, and 6 months now after settup with no problems, other than the lack of a 64Bit OS . . . and I have the beta version right now, it simply is lacking in driver support. The actual speed of the processor is only 2 gigs, so things are changing, big time. Instead of trying to get more speed from voltage, they are working on _architecture_, and I think that, ultimately, this is what's going to make the real difference.

Tsisqua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on man. AMD has been saying for years that speed isn't everything. In light of that, Has anyone seen the latest MaximumPC magazine?

Intel is officially dropping the mhz/ghz naming scheme(scam). I guess they actually learned something from AMD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

PF_Coastie

Coasties Place (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/)

CATALYST 4.2 OGL (http://home.earthlink.net/~bmcoastie/atioglxx.zip)

Coasties FB and ATI settings (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/IL2setup.html)
http://home.earthlink.net/~bmcoastie/images/FS_SIG.jpg
Click here to find out more about FIGHTER SWEEPS 2 (http://663blacktigers.net/FS2index.html)


OFFICIAL ATI BETA TESTER

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 07:40 AM
Yeah, AMD is good..........for when you don't have a lighter handy, or your houses heater is broken.

But the best part of AMD is that I can buy chips from the market leader for a lower price.

lol

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
Some of the new 64bit games that are going to be out don't need to use the OS of the computer. You load the disk, reboot the PC, and the PC boots to the game, operating on a Linux kernel installed to the game disk. The end result is a gaming console on steroids.


Just wait. We ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Tsisqua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My my, how we've come full circle, eh?

Any "old timers" here? Remember Ghost Busters, The Black Cauldron, and Lode Runner? IIRC, all 3 of those (plus many, many games of the era) did exactly that, stick in the disk and reboot.

It does present problems though - you can't run anything in the background (like voice comms for example), you can't task switch, you have to constantly reboot, and they don't age well. Without being able to launch them from within an OS it's hard to run slow down software to allow you to continue playing them many systems later.

The funny thing is though, Windows XP is a good operating system. It's certainly the best Windows M$ has ever put out, but, it's just good in it's own right. Too many people let their anti-M$ mind set get in the way. (which is really hilarious because so many also like the X-Box. lol) And it's also plenty fast for games. (which is a far cry from early windows)

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

Aaron_GT
05-27-2004, 07:51 AM
Don't get too obsessed by GHz of chips alone. Look at system performance in terms of floating point operations instead. 3 years ago the bottleneck wasn't the clock speed of the chips so much as memory bandwidth to the processor and the size of cache. A fast chip is not of much use if you can't supply it with things to do, and it is not always easy to do so. A lot of processes are memory bound not CPU bound. Given that processes are often memory bound development has been going into memory transport technology (e.g. the AMD's high bandwidth systems, or the dual directional transport on the G5 processors built by IBM for Apple). In the past 3 or 4 years we've seen memory bandwidths to the chip climb enormously.

Also, going back to the GHz, thing, AMD and IBM chips for the same GHz do more work than intel's. You can only really compare chips with the same cache on the same process and die size by GHz.

Aaron_GT
05-27-2004, 07:54 AM
"It does present problems though - you can't run anything in the background (like voice comms for example), you can't task switch, you have to constantly reboot, and they don't age well. Without being able to launch them from within an OS it's hard to run slow down software to allow you to continue playing them many systems later."

On the other hand it is good for game developers in that they have less wildcards in terms of the system to worry about - just the hardware.

Also having a bespoke version of an OS is the ultimate anti cheating tool - no using voice comms when you shouldn't be able to.

But then you can also be sure that pretty soon you'll install a new network card/sound card/joystick/whatever that it won't recognise and there is no way to update it. But then what is the shelf life of a game these days for the kidz?

mortoma
05-27-2004, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yes, there was a speed wall at 3GHz in processors. I mean, 3Ghz is the max speed for a year now, its never got stuck like that before. With the 64bit stuff the ride begins again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Think about it, AMD just stopped at 3200+ rating, and went 64 bit instead of going AthalonXP 3600+ for example. Good long term decision I think, and Intel too I guess--I don't follow Intel anymore since they porked the pentium FPU in PIII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FP difference is negligible. That's a lot of marketing hype. Pentiums are not firehazards, Athlons are. lol

Plus, Intel is the market leader, everything is done for and based on their stuff ("everything" in the figurative sense, not literal). Why risk that something - anything - might not work exactly the way it's supposed to?

Given the lack of thermal protection and extra heat generated by Athlons, P4s are just a far _safer_ (and that I do mean literally) bet.

But, you say it's never stuck at a single speed for a year......how long have you been messing with PCs? Just curious. The pace of development of the 8086 through to 80486 was enough to make a snail look fast.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What a joke Blitz, I forgot how to laugh at stuff like this. Have you ever known anybody to cook an Athlon that wasn't doing something with it he wasn't supposed to??? I started building my own computers a long time ago and at first built many Intel based computers, but in 2001 I switched to AMD based sysems and never looked back. Intels aren't bad but I will probably never build a Intel system again. Besides, even if AMD processors did run hotter for a while than Intel, they certainly didn't run hot enough to burn up and even 50 degrees centigrade is not hot to the touch. So "cool" your jets there Piggo as the newest batch of AMD is running cooler than ever. I have never had a problem with AMD chips burning up, although I'll admit I have to run my AC in my small apartment a little cooler but not much. Actually helps in the winter time. Certain processors running
hotter than another brand is one thing but processors actually burning up is quite another. And AMDs simply don't do that. I have never heard of an AMD burning up unless someone was trying to extreme OC it. And many AMD chips for a long time did not like to be OC'd, especially Palaminos. So they were doing something they should not have been doing in the first place.
A stock AMD will run forever. If something happens where thermal protection has to kick in,
then something would be severely wrong in the first place, so who needs it??

mortoma
05-27-2004, 09:15 AM
Oh I forgot BlittzPiggo, read this and weep. You were saying?? I mean about everything being developed for Intel, such as software and the like!!
Ha!! Read this here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~85292,00.html

Matz0r
05-27-2004, 09:30 AM
The personal computer has barely evolved since 1984.

http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/p51blamgreysmall.gif

diomedes33
05-27-2004, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matz0r:
The personal computer has barely evolved since 1984.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?! My calculator has more power and functionality than a computer from 84. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.public.asu.edu/~guthriec/ubi_sig.jpg

LilHorse
05-27-2004, 10:24 AM
Well, I must have comms, so I'll wait til the OS supports 64bit.

Also, I just have to say that although it's off topic this is about the most interesting thread I've read here in a long time.

Can you guys suggest any good sites to view for us non-comp. lit. folks to read (and more importantly understand and learn from) and stay updated. I've already bookmarked the dznet site tsisqua linked. TY. Any others?

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 11:20 AM
Wow. Have I touched off a religious debate here?

Look Mort, I wasn't attacking your religion....well, not as far as I was concerned, but I guess that really comes down to you, doesn't it? lol

I will tell you this, even though it will likely spark more hatred.

I am a Network Administrator for a medium sized company. 1 small branch of this company is our animation dept. We have 4 full time animators, dozens of dedicated rendering machines and a large 3DSMax renderfarm covering most of the rest of our network. In addition to large (QXGA) res/frame animation, we also sell rack mount video playback systems, many of which we make in house. They are all PC based, we deal with animation and video playback a lot. Terrabytes of storage, and GB/sec throughput. Obviously, # crunching is important to us.

The lead animator was (operative word 'was') an AMD die-hard for a long time. We have many, many Athlon systems of all speeds and cores here. And I can tell you this, they eat fans like candy. With a dead fan, they smoke themselves in short order. With an improperly seated HS, they won't even POST before they smoke themselves. Furthermore, the dual Athlon MP rigs, even with high end Antec power supplies, are far, far more sensitive to power condition than dual P3 or dual Xeon rigs.

And then there is this - http://www.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip

Additionally, in terms of absolute performance, the top of the top of the line from Intel is faster/more powerful than the AMD counterpart. AMD has more bang for the buck, but we are interested in the raw horsepower.

SSE is faster than 3Dnow too.

I will also add that several jobs before this one, I was a break/fix tech. We used several software diag utils. Some of them would not run on AMD machines. At all. The reason is obvious, they are using different means to attain the same ends. Most often, it works, but the potential exists for it to not. Granted, they are much better about that now, and for the average home user, I won't have a problem recommending AMDs, but I won't own one. I will also try to steer the more savy and power users among my friends away from that too.


If this upsets you, I apologize, but it is reality.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

[This message was edited by BlitzPig_DDT on Thu May 27 2004 at 01:35 PM.]

SECUDUS
05-27-2004, 04:34 PM
Nano technology is the way to go... Read 'Engines of creation' By K.Eric Drexler and you will see that mechanical computers will make a comebackand blown the electrical usurper away...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 05:35 PM
DDT is mostly talking about the failure of AMD to put on~chip any protection if the CPU fan fails, which is very rare with AMD supplied fans, but a very real worry for many (not for me). The new Athalon64s have fixed this.

About DDT's warning about AMD chips not running software like Intel:: I too was ~very~ concerned about that when I got my first computer. But I did my research and my first computer was AMD DX4~100 copy of Intel DX4~100. Two years later upgraded to Pentium 133Mhz (I needed fast Intel math unit and AMD's own designs could not do math fast), and only two years ago I got AMD 1700+ and never looked back at Intel (with PIII Intel got Sloppy and let AMD catch up in the math units). I can't speak for professionals like DDT, but for home users AMD is a very good chip. But there ~is~ the issue of the AMD chip burning up if the fan fails. AMD supplied Fans are amazing things, and I never bother with the pop culture Uber fans used by teh overclockers.

BlitzPig_DDT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Intel is Market Leader<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Microsoft CFS3 is Market Leader. As flight simmers we are more familiar with webboard propaganda than most. DDT stay with the AMD 32bit chip fan failure issue and you will continue to make some sense.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
05-27-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
if the CPU fan fails, which is very rare with AMD supplied fans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In both 4U rack mount chassis and full tower cases the AMD supplied fans die at an alarming rate.

Then again, we use more than most (as most people will only ever have 1 or 2 at a time, we have dozens upon dozens at any given time).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BlitzPig_DDT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Intel is Market Leader<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Microsoft CFS3 is Market Leader. As flight simmers we are more familiar with webboard propaganda than most. DDT stay with the AMD 32bit chip fan failure issue and you will continue to make some sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

There is a bit of a difference here. What 1 flight sim does is irrelevant to another. Oleg is not following M$'s lead. Nor does he have to.

AMD is following Intels lead. They do have to. Yes, they are trying to innovate and break out of Intel's shadow, but they are not there yet. If Intel decides on a major shift, the market will follow. Remember Slot 1? Notice AMD followed? The claim was that it had to be done - it didn't. The mobile chips were the same thing without the slot card.


A better analog would be OS/2 and Windows. Back in the Win3.x days, OS/2 could run DOS, Win3.x and OS/2 native apps. Yet M$ was the market leader. When they made a major shift (Win9x) IBM (OS/2) was left out in the cold and dropped like a hot potato by the market.

Yes, there are differences between IBMs software division and AMD, but the point remains. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-27-2004, 06:04 PM
Yes, for home use I suggest 32bit AMD, for professional use I have no opinion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although the 64bit AMD may change that as they include on~chip protection of fan failure.

And Intel followed AMD back to socket design.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
05-27-2004, 06:15 PM
"Plus, Intel is the market leader, everything is done for and based on their stuff"

Er.. that'll be why the upcoming Intel 64 bit part is likely to be almost a clone of the AMD64, then? Partly this is due, of course, to IA64 being a flop.

" And I can tell you this, they eat fans like candy. With a dead fan, they smoke themselves in short order"

Sounds like someone turned off the fan/temp protection in the bios... We've had that happen once on a blade type system (I do some work in high performance scientific computing). We also swapped the AMDs in that system for Pentiums, mostly because back in 2001 Pentiums ran cooler and the air flow in the system was poorly designed. We took a small hit on performance by doing so, even though the Pentiums were of a slightly higher clock speed. These days AMDs tend to run a touch cooler than Pentiums.

"Additionally, in terms of absolute performance, the top of the top of the line from Intel is faster/more powerful than the AMD counterpart. AMD has more bang for the buck, but we are interested in the raw horsepower."

Depends on what you are doing with it. The new Pentiums have a long pipeline which is problematic for some code due to branch mispredictions. If the code is repetitive and each to predict and the memory bandwidth requirements are such that you can keep that pipeline full then the latest Pentiums are pretty good. However the AMD64 is also very good, and if your codes are prone to mispredictions and require high memory bandwidth then the excellent 'hypertransport' (basically dual memory pathways) beat the Pentium. Intel is apparently moving to a shorter pipeline in future, based on the Pentium-M core, perhaps.

Also the AMD64s, by default, come with quite a bit of cache that was only previously available on the Pentium EE series. However with the move to the Pentium-M core we can probably expect 2MB L2 cache on Pentiums by default.

Keep long pipelines full and ensuring that you are hitting the L2 (or L3) cache reliably and not generating a lot of cache misses is an art. A good compiler helps, and the Intel compilers are really very good. Nothing really substitutes for (especially true if you want to target a variety of scalar CPU types) writing decent inner loops.

AMDs also got a big boost by picking up a lot of research from the Alpha (a very fast chip, sadly missed).

"I will also add that several jobs before this one, I was a break/fix tech. We used several software diag utils. Some of them would not run on AMD machines."

A few years ago AMDs were not anything like they were then. What was the case 3 or 4 years ago is pretty irrelevant to the point that Intel and AMD are at now.

I still think the best mass market processor out there for PCs is the IBM/Appple G5. Scalar and vector, and one of the fastest chips out there.

The Sparc chips can also be good if you can really use the 3 level cache system effectively and keep the multiple floating point and integer units full.

The mips chip is also good in terms of flops/MHz and is very economical on power and heat output. (In HPC we are now finding that the biggest problem in provision of systems is heat output). It's peak speed is lagging a bit, from what I last saw. If you are doing scientific HPC with parallelisable codes you can put more mips chips in a room without melting the building, though.

And then down at the low level it's neck and neck between ARM designs and the Crusoe, except that the chip in the PS2 is very powerful. I have heard it said that if your algorithm can transfer well to a vector architecture then it is the equivalent of about a 3GHz Pentium IV. Probably lacking in memory bandwidth, though.

Bearcat99
05-27-2004, 09:49 PM
I have a 2500Barton... my mobo has sensors on it that monitor the temperatureI have it set to 52C. Before i added my extra fans I was regularly going up to the mid 60s.. not good. Since adding a new heatsink and 2 more fans and a new PS a few months back I rarely go over 49C.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

Aaron_GT
05-28-2004, 02:12 AM
"In both 4U rack mount chassis and full tower cases the AMD supplied fans die at an alarming rate."

If you want long term reliability in a business situation you never use the stock processor fans on commodity hardware, be it Intel or AMD. The stock fans are designed for the bulk market - home users and small offices, not servers. In any case the fan quality has little to do with the quality of the processor itself. To make a Scott McNealy type analogy it would be like complaining about the quality of the car because you don't like the octane rating of the fuel they put in the tank when it was sitting on the lot waiting to be bought.

Aaron_GT
05-28-2004, 02:15 AM
Baearcat - I have an AMD XP 2000 at home, with a Zalman flower. My power supply began to die so I replaced it with a 450W dual fan version. One fan plays directly onto the processor. When wiring it in I temporarily disconnected the CPU fan and forgot to reconnect it. I ran it for a week (no temps above 50C) before realising! It's a much quieter CPU than the one I had before too. I am not sure I'd want to risk playing AEP without the CPU fan running during the summer, though, so I reconnected it and run it on the slowest setting.

F16_Fatboy
05-28-2004, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Wow. Have I touched off a religious debate here?

Look Mort, I wasn't attacking your religion....well, not as far as I was concerned, but I guess that really comes down to you, doesn't it? lol

I will tell you this, even though it will likely spark more hatred.

I am a Network Administrator for a medium sized company. 1 small branch of this company is our animation dept. We have 4 full time animators, dozens of dedicated rendering machines and a large 3DSMax renderfarm covering most of the rest of our network. In addition to large (QXGA) res/frame animation, we also sell rack mount video playback systems, many of which we make in house. They are all PC based, we deal with animation and video playback a lot. Terrabytes of storage, and GB/sec throughput. Obviously, # crunching is important to us.

The lead animator was (operative word 'was') an AMD die-hard for a long time. We have many, many Athlon systems of all speeds and cores here. And I can tell you this, they eat fans like candy. With a dead fan, they smoke themselves in short order. With an improperly seated HS, they won't even POST before they smoke themselves. Furthermore, the dual Athlon MP rigs, even with high end Antec power supplies, are far, far more sensitive to power condition than dual P3 or dual Xeon rigs.

And then there is this - http://www.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip

Additionally, in terms of absolute performance, the top of the top of the line from Intel is faster/more powerful than the AMD counterpart. AMD has more bang for the buck, but we are interested in the raw horsepower.

SSE is faster than 3Dnow too.

I will also add that several jobs before this one, I was a break/fix tech. We used several software diag utils. Some of them would not run on AMD machines. At all. The reason is obvious, they are using different means to attain the same ends. Most often, it works, but the potential exists for it to not. Granted, they are _much_ better about that now, and for the average home user, I won't have a problem recommending AMDs, but I won't own one. I will also try to steer the more savy and power users among my friends away from that too.


If this upsets you, I apologize, but it is reality.

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

[This message was edited by BlitzPig_DDT on Thu May 27 2004 at 01:35 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not necessarily the view of the software industry as we can read in this article.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/muglia_winserver.asp

"Paul: Are you seeing any difference between AMD's [64-bit] stuff and Intel's stuff?

BM: Yes. [Smiles]

Paul: Would you care to clarify that? [Laughs]

BM: Well, AMD has done a good job ...

[Laughter]

Paul: OK, I realize these companies are both important partners...

BM: I think both have invested very heavily... and I'm sure that customers will be happy with either solution.

Paul: All righty.

[Laughter]

BM: Are there differences? Yes, there are differences.

Paul: OK, so how do these companies differentiate their 64-bit products?

BM: So there are some things that AMD's done that Intel hasn't done, and I'm sure Intel will continue to invest here, and will do a really good job. AMD led the way on this one. There's no doubt they led the way on this one.
"



Im not a fan boy of either AMD or Intell. The competition keeps the evolution going.

FLSTF

http://img41.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/Album1/sig_fatboy.jpg

diomedes33
05-28-2004, 11:50 AM
Quantum Computers (http://www.qubit.org), using an atom's quantum state instead of a transister

Nano machines, some else already mentioned

Learning computers. I can't find the link. NASA was working on a project that allowed a computer to rewrite itself on a hardware level based on a genetic and evolutionary rule set to optimize itself.

These technologies will make anything we have right now seem like the old turing machines in the 60's. IMHO.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~guthriec/ubi_sig.jpg